MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2326905627 · doi:10.1093/ehr/ces024

Liberal Intellectuals and Public Culture in Modern Britain, 1815-1914: Making Words Flesh, by William C. Lubenow

2012· article· en· W2326905627 on OpenAlexaff
Samuel Otter

Bibliographic record

VenueThe English Historical Review · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSensibilitySkepticismFaithSociologyAestheticsReligious studiesLawPhilosophyPolitical scienceTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this book, layered with anecdotes and biographical vignettes, William Lubenow traces the reorientation of public culture in nineteenth-century Britain: from a confessional state in which public office was tied to adherence to the Thirty-nine Articles to a new culture in which liberal values dominated. These liberal values formed ‘a moral mindset’ (p. 2), ‘a multivalent sensibility’ (p. 7) that was characterised by scepticism and tolerance, and that stretched beyond a particular party. The first chapter examines changes in religious sensibility from the repeal of the Tests and Corporation Acts (1828) and the enactment of Catholic Emancipation (1829) up to the early twentieth century. The author argues that the personal struggles between faith and scepticism of these generations shaped liberal values. As religion became more fluid, and more personal, imaginative explorations of religious belief led intellectuals towards a new liberal sensibility. Lubenow’s argument that religious sensibilities were critical to the articulation of liberal values reinforces recent scholarship which has postponed the advent of secularisation until well into the twentieth century. This first chapter captures effectively the impact of religious culture on the ways in which sceptical liberals imagined their moral space in the world; Lubenow quotes Virginia Woolf recalling Keynes’s regret that new generations would not experience the religious world which he had rejected. One of the virtues of the book is its wide reading of personal papers; Lubenow’s sensitivity to the fluidity and personal quality of these generations’ preoccupation with religious belief and unbelief owes much to these sources.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.893
Threshold uncertainty score0.445

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.270 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe English Historical ReviewSame topicAmerican Constitutional Law and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207